Jump to content
CyReN

Halo 5: Guardians Discussion

Recommended Posts

Haha arg is my guy, I know what he means. And like I said, I obviously know PC and the higher quality settings are better, it's not even about preference it's about affordability. Not to mention consoles are all designed to run with same exact specifications. 

 

However, I will disagree that FPS has a direct correlation to responsiveness. This is just simply not true. The main example I can think of that everyone on this forum can relate to is the fact that I can aim significantly better on games like OG CE, Halo 2, CoD 4, and Destiny 2 than Halo 5 and a number of other games on Xbox One like Overwatch and Paladins which have pretty sub-par aiming on the console version. 

 

I'm actually looking forward to seeing the PC version in full because the environment in this game looks very well designed this time around. And @@arglactable being a audiophile, I'm definitely sure he'd appreciate the OST for this game so far, because this music is OD lol! 

 

But yeah, it doesn't really matter if the game is 30 FPS or 60 FPS personally if I have to play on a platform and lose the ability to play with my friends. It's mainly the reason I haven't even touched my Xbox outside of NBA 2K and Destiny 2. Playing by yourself is butt lol.

Share this post


Link to post

However, I will disagree that FPS has a direct correlation to responsiveness. This is just simply not true.

Everything you said is great except that. You're talking about one aiming system being better than another, which is the case and does allow games like CE to feel better than Halo 5. However, given the same aiming system, 60 fps will feel more responsive.

 

30 fps has a frametime of 33.3 ms and 60 fps a frametime of 16.7 ms. That's how long one frame stays on the screen before switching to the next one. Frametime IS the reason why a stable 30 fps can feel better than a fluctuating 60 to 30/45 etc fps. The lower/stable you can get your frametimes, the more responsive the game will feel and actually is. Hit a button on a controller? You'll feel/see it happen sooner on screen with a higher fps.

 

So FPS does IN FACT have a direct correlation with responsiveness.

  • Upvote (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post

Don't forget that's a H5 issue. Titanfall 2 and Gears 4 used dynamic resolution, 60fps too and they felt great with a controller. Don't blame the tech, blame the devs who don't know how to use it.

 

Edit: Was Gears 4 60fps on Xbox? Only played the PC version. Still, used a controller just to test it out and it felt great.

 

Oh gosh i wasn't blaming the tech directly. I just dont understand devs needs to overcomplicate the simplest of concepts, which Halo 5 has done in spades. If you can't find an acceptable framerate to lock your game at (im talking MP here), you have other problems imo.  You're unwilling to sacrifice the right things (textures, crazy lighting, resolution) for the right things (60 fps, smooth gameplay)

 

And yeah, Gears 4 is 60 fps on Xbox and it looks better than Halo.  It drops down to 30 when you play split-screen.  I think a major advantage that TC has is they are using the Unreal engine and all the tools it provides compared to 343 trying to create their own engine.  Seems like a waste of resources and dev time on 343s part.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Everything you said is great except that. You're talking about one aiming system being better than another, which is the case and does allow games like CE to feel better than Halo 5. However, given the same aiming system, 60 fps will feel more responsive.

 

30 fps has a frametime of 33.3 ms and 60 fps a frametime of 16.7 ms. That's how long one frame stays on the screen before switching to the next one. Frametime IS the reason why a stable 30 fps can feel better than a fluctuating 60 to 30/45 etc fps. The lower/stable you can get your frametimes, the more responsive the game will feel and actually is. Hit a button on a controller? You'll feel/see it happen sooner on screen with a higher fps.

 

So FPS does IN FACT have a direct correlation with responsiveness.

 

I mean you can spin the argument any kind of way you want to man, but just because you have a higher FPS does not automatically mean your game is going to feel more responsive. THIS is a fact. Memory buffers, the input system itself, etc. a lot of these can also have a direct effect with inputs and not just aiming. And I'll just repeat myself, you can have as much 60 FPS as you want, but when I can actually aim in a game, I'm more inclined to play it. That's as simple as it gets. We can drill into each component's specifications as deep as you want but at a user level, when the game feels responsive, you're going to get more satisfied players.

 

Edit: Just to clarify, when I say "spin the argument" I was referring to your use of "given the same aiming system, 60 fps will feel more responsive", sure, if we're arguing about variables that currently don't exist. 

 

Just to add an example: Halo CE. I don't care how much of a CE elitist you are, there isn't a single person that will tell you that the jumping in that game feels amazing. It feels like crap no matter which version you play; and I LOVE CE. You can then use the same argument "You're talking about one jumping system" which again, is my entire point. Responsiveness and functionality are not a direct result of FPS. Does it help? Absolutely. Didn't deny that, but there are other factors involved.

  • Upvote (+1) 4

Share this post


Link to post

I really believe we all just have to wait until Halo 6 comes out so it can crash and burn before M$ finally wakes up and decides to fire one of the worst developer studios in gaming.

 

I don't think calling them a bad developer is the proper wording. Making a shooter like Halo isn't an easy thing to do. Though the creative directors do not want to make a Halo game. They have this fantasy that if they make a frankenstein game of every popular trend, it will automatically be a giant success in terms of relevancy with a consistent playerbase. They have no idea that a game needs to have one concise vision for mass appeal.

  • Upvote (+1) 6

Share this post


Link to post

So is the BR nerf gonna be 343's unintentional answer for magnum starts in BTB? From the sound of it, it will have less range and maybe less magnetism/aim assist.

Share this post


Link to post

Obviously, high frame rate doesn't guarantee the game will be responsive. I wasn't suggesting that at all. But given the same aiming system at 30Hz, 60Hz, and 120/144Hz, the higher refresh rates WILL feel notably better in all cases. Lower framerate inherently limits how responsive it can be. Comparing a 30fps game with a good aiming system to a 60fps game with a dog shit aiming system doesn't accomplish anything.

The point still stands that 30fps looks and feels like shit and I have plenty of better things to do with my eyes and hands.

  • Upvote (+1) 6

Share this post


Link to post

How about if its not a big deal because people play a 30 fps game and like it and think its not a big deal? :simms:

 

60 is better for sure and higher is better, but i will take a locked, consistent 30 fps with legit aiming over whatever H5 is dishing out in its 60 FPS, janky aiming, dynamic resolution shitshow.

 

Say whatever you want about the framerate, Destiny aiming feels better than any other console FPS, regardless.  It still doesn't hold a candle to PC of course.  Aiming with a mouse always feels good (unless of course, you are playing H5) but its a little of an apple to oranges comparison as well.

 

Sorry, but I'm tired of low standards resulting in shitty products (which is an industry wide issue at this point), so I don't care what excuses people have for it. Halo 5 being garbage doesn't have much to do with the respectable performance target.

 

 

He explained pretty clearly he'll be playing on console because of the social environment is better because he has more friends there.  Pretty easy to comprehend if you get off your high horse for a second. 

 

Whine some more. Don't you have some hilarious non-sequitur posts to be making, bud?

  • Downvote (-1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

I'm surprised Destiny won't have crossplay between PC and Xbox for the co-op. It's the perfect kind of game for it.

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

I'm surprised Destiny won't have crossplay between PC and Xbox for the co-op. It's the perfect kind of game for it.

Bungie is a bare minimum dev at this point. And they certainly aren't going to give pc and Xbox a feature ps4 doesnt have.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Sorry, but I'm tired of low standards resulting in shitty products (which is an industry wide issue at this point), so I don't care what excuses people have for it. Halo 5 being garbage doesn't have much to do with the respectable performance target.

 

 

 

Whine some more. Don't you have some hilarious non-sequitur posts to be making, bud?

Shitty to whom? Pc players? People that only have a console? People that don't pay attention to performance specs? Nobody is disputing higher framerate and more precise inputs aren't better. Just like nobody is saying that 60 fps shouldn't be a priority, even on console. We're just saying those things aren't a requirement to have high quality experiences. Nor does being pragmatic about such things (especially in the console space) mean that people have inherently low standards.

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

Whine some more. Don't you have some hilarious non-sequitur posts to be making, bud?

No, just trying to make an obvious point even more obvious for you since your brain can't see past its' elitist facade.
  • Upvote (+1) 3
  • Downvote (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Obviously, high frame rate doesn't guarantee the game will be responsive. I wasn't suggesting that at all. But given the same aiming system at 30Hz, 60Hz, and 120/144Hz, the higher refresh rates WILL feel notably better in all cases. Lower framerate inherently limits how responsive it can be. Comparing a 30fps game with a good aiming system to a 60fps game with a dog shit aiming system doesn't accomplish anything.

 

The point still stands that 30fps looks and feels like shit and I have plenty of better things to do with my eyes and hands.

This is something I wish I could force people to experience somehow. When I used to get 60 FPS on the 60Hz monitor it felt better and I knew it. People said the same for 120/144Hz and I agreed but I didn't really know until I myself was playing CS at over 200FPS on a 144Hz monitor. Its not just better. It makes 30 FPS feel like absolute trash, they look like a slide show in comparison, and the fact that in 2017 devs are trying to ship anything below 60FPS is sad for everyone that's forced to play that way. That "era" of hardware is dead but for some reason console devs get away with feeding shit to people on a massive scale even though PCs and  current consoles are so far beyond that point. If anything its a pathetic attempt to make the game not look so awful compared to hardware they couldn't compete with if they locked at 10FPS by sacrificing things that are actually important like the feel of the gameplay.

  • Upvote (+1) 4

Share this post


Link to post

I don't think calling them a bad developer is the proper wording. Making a shooter like Halo isn't an easy thing to do. Though the creative directors do not want to make a Halo game. They have this fantasy that if they make a frankenstein game of every popular trend, it will automatically be a giant success in terms of relevancy with a consistent playerbase. They have no idea that a game needs to have one concise vision for mass appeal.

 

Really?  You wouldn't call 343i a "bad developer"?  I guess we're just going to forget Halo 4's launch and population decline, MCC's fucking entirety, the CE Reach playlist, Halo 5's launch/life cycle, misleading ad campaigns, refusal to listen to community feedback, etc?  I think you may be confusing questionable decision making with poor and unethical consumer/market practices.

  • Upvote (+1) 6
  • Downvote (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Really?  You wouldn't call 343i a "bad developer"?  I guess we're just going to forget Halo 4's launch and population decline, MCC's fucking entirety, the CE Reach playlist, Halo 5's launch/life cycle, misleading ad campaigns, refusal to listen to community feedback, etc?  I think you may be confusing questionable decision making with poor and unethical consumer/market practices.

 

You're 100% right. Bad is a good term.

  • Upvote (+1) 5

Share this post


Link to post

The best thing 343 ever did was probably the first thing they did, which was the Reach TU. They screwed up though by not making it mandatory in every playlist.

  • Upvote (+1) 5

Share this post


Link to post

You're 100% right. Bad is a good term.

Yeah, I guess incompetent, unreliable, or shady would have been better suited to describe the team that makes Halo games now :(

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

Remember us all saying 343 knows what they are doing because the Reach TU update? If we only knew. They were supposed to save Halo, not kill it even faster.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Didn't they also change or remove Squad Slayer in Reach? I just remember cause people were complaining about something happening to it.

Share this post


Link to post

This is something I wish I could force people to experience somehow. When I used to get 60 FPS on the 60Hz monitor it felt better and I knew it. People said the same for 120/144Hz and I agreed but I didn't really know until I myself was playing CS at over 200FPS on a 144Hz monitor. Its not just better. It makes 30 FPS feel like absolute trash, they look like a slide show in comparison, and the fact that in 2017 devs are trying to ship anything below 60FPS is sad for everyone that's forced to play that way. That "era" of hardware is dead but for some reason console devs get away with feeding shit to people on a massive scale even though PCs and  current consoles are so far beyond that point. If anything its a pathetic attempt to make the game not look so awful compared to hardware they couldn't compete with if they locked at 10FPS by sacrificing things that are actually important like the feel of the gameplay.

 

Exactly this. I got some shit from certain hardcasuals who seem to take pride in not being "elitists" when I pointed out that the XB.O.X. is going to be a complete waste of hardware, but it's just another example of the absolutely moronic resource prioritization. Plenty of games will STILL be running at 30fps (to the point that they are fucking super sampling at 4K for 1080p displays). Destiny 2 will still be running at 30fps on that system. The issue is not that the hardware can't hit 60fps or even higher. The issue is that it can't reach the poor man's console version of PC "Ultra" visuals while maintaining that framerate. These priorities are clear even in a game like H5, which at the very least I respect for sticking to 60fps. It's crammed full of trade-off optimizations so they can keep it looking as "next gen" (i.e. obnoxious) as possible.

 

People can keep telling themselves it's not a big deal and devs will just keep shitting out games that don't even hit 30fps consistently. No standards required.

  • Upvote (+1) 4
  • Downvote (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Yeah, I guess incompetent, unreliable, or shady would have been better suited to describe the team that makes Halo games now :(

I prefer "worst video game developer of all time".

 

  • Upvote (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post

Anyone have a chance to check out the new weapon tuning changes? Any thoughts?

It won't be live until next week.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't think calling them a bad developer is the proper wording. Making a shooter like Halo isn't an easy thing to do. Though the creative directors do not want to make a Halo game. They have this fantasy that if they make a frankenstein game of every popular trend, it will automatically be a giant success in terms of relevancy with a consistent playerbase. They have no idea that a game needs to have one concise vision for mass appeal.

I find myself bringing this up a lot, but I've been convinced 343 doesn't want to make a Halo game for a while now. Like, you can point to stuff like loadouts and abilities and say that they were likely meant to imitate other games on the market, but combine this with a pretty major art style change and shift in tone, and I find it much more likely that this is just evident of a studio stuck with a brand they have little interest in.

 

I don't think that it's any coincidence that the moment the franchise fell into their hands, 343 did their best to challenge the idea that Humanity would be left crippled by the Covenant war after Halo 3. Not even seven years after the fact, and humanity had become "the giants of the galaxy". I can only assume 343 just didn't have any interest in having a universe where Humanity was left in such a devastated state. Would probably also explain why the Covenant are so superfluous in the story of 4 and 5. 343 HAS to include them for the sake of the brand, but the main foe to the backflipping cyborg ninjas will always be the orange robo menace.

 

I think there IS a vision here-- it's just constrained by the Halo brand. Of course, given what we've seen of Halo 4, Spartan Ops, and Halo 5, I'm incapable of believing that an entirely original game from these devs would be anything worth playing. If anything, the Halo brand is the only thing giving the studio any exposure.

  • Upvote (+1) 6

Share this post


Link to post

People can keep telling themselves it's not a big deal and devs will just keep shitting out games that don't even hit 30fps consistently. No standards required.

Devs might be shitting out games that can't hit 30fps consistently on console, but that same game probably plays fine on PC. What's your problem with that?

If someone else enjoys that experience for their own personal reasons, so be it.  You don't have to talk down to them in a typical Arg-like condescending manner.  

 

So what you enjoy the more superior experience. So do I.  That doesn't mean everyone else has to or can. You don't have to go around treating people like they're idiots for liking a less superior experience. They probably have their reasons.  Sure, a big portion of console players are probably ACTUALLY ignorant to what they are missing out on.  Like someone who has only ever ate tacos from Taco Bell. Sweet Jesus if they only knew about Torchy's Tacos.  Sure it may cost a little more, but once you try it, it's hard to go back.     

 

I'm struggling to understand why I would want to spend 60 dollars (plus XBL/PSN subscription fees) to play a version of the game that is worse in pretty much every possible way.

 

No one is asking you to buy the console version.  They are defending their reasoning to do so. 

 

... while Xboner and PSFail owners measure their output resolution micro dicks.

You act as if you are not condescending yet you say shit like this.

 

​I don't forget about framerate after a few minutes. It just feels like ass the whole time.

Same here. I can't stand shooter games on console. Because FPS really is a contributing factor to my ability to play well. But if someone else can deal with it and get over it/is ignorant to it, WHO THE FUCK CARES?

Chill with the PC-master-race-I-must-convert-everyone crusade.

 

God-for-fucking-bid someone wanting to meet up with their friends and eat a couple of shitty tacos at Taco Bell.

  • Upvote (+1) 5

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use & Privacy Policy.